Karnataka High Court
Sri M K Narayana Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THES THE 12"' DAY 0;: JANUARY
BEFORE: A A
THE HONBLE MR. msncg TANANLT)
WRET PETITION Nc).§§450 (j1?20QT7 (GETS/1'.~,P:OLIyC'§')"~T A
BETWEEN:
Sri.M.K.Narayana T' V 1
Son of Late Nanjunda Re<Jdy=.. _ T ''
Ageda1b<_)ut"Z3«ye_a:'s, ~ A A
Residfihg a':AAN{o.V38(:1'2. _l.'--jfrx$'{ Finer')
Old M.adi--v'aIa T\/iV¢iiz1 R()aci.,_'""---- ' '
035 Madivizial,' "
Ba11g21E('):7e---56() (J63. S
Ser;i(_r1' Citizén.<hip'mutblaimed. ...Pl'%1Tl'T}()NER
Kuma1"avel, A<iv0<::1te)
I. . Thé'State ofKarnataka,
A -By its Sacretmy,
Vidhana Soudha,
BaI1gal()re--56(.) 001.
The C01n1niSsi0ner of Poiice.
Inf'£mt:*_v Road.
B:mg21l01"e--56(T) (Mg
I-J
The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Adugodi,
Bangaiore.
Circle Inspector of Police,
Madivala Police Si:-mom?
Madivaia, '4
Bangu}ore--56(_) 068.
The S ub--Enspectof"of' 'I ' 1. 2 " - ._
Madivala Poiice s'I;£tion;- Z
Madivala, vv
Bangz11o1'<:j--'5v6() 0:_f)8. V' '
Sri_ U%fi§:_é;h::3'iiE;_ti:yg _ 4'
SQV171 o'f3'._:i'ot; *'.&';::3(VV)\/\'.1_14"'Lf..')_VV['l'1'E': «pev§i_tVi.one1'.
,VVMajoj1";§v_v .4
';Re:siding '
B'UV! L;1;¢g.){:t.;V'V.
8a1hg;:Ml«>V1'c. . ' "
3Sf1"i.\__/i jayhzikumm".
}\;'Ei:1s"K £1va11a,
_ "Son _4(fJ~f_Sh1;1nEh£l Mudaiiar,
"A.§;;:d s1.tjo'ui 45 years,
R¢s"idV_ir1g at near Oid Chouliry,
Anjaheya Tempfe,
" ,Hosur Main Road,
Madivaia,
Banga}(_):'e.
Sri.Vijaya S:'iniva-1.<;£1,
Son of Lane ;'\/E.Na"1rz-Iyana,
Aged about 38 years.
No.52. Sapthagiri Nivas.
6'
'1
J
20"' A Main, \/enkatesshwara Layout,
B.T.M. first Stage,
Bangaiore-560 068.
9. Sri.T.Nanjappa. _--
_ Son of not known to the petiti'o'ner.« .
Aduit,
Residing at No.2, 20"' Main. '
B.T.M First Stage, " V
Banga1ore--560068. ( .':A.fRE"SPONDENTS
(By Shri.S.B.Shahapnr,*~.A_Additionai.t Go.vernmentVA Advocate for
Respondent i, ' 'a_ L
Shri.M.R.Nanjunda Got}/da -"AssoLfi.:t;tes, Advocate for
Respondent 8 V'
Shri. Younis and }'~§.ssr)eiates;'for--wRespondent 7)
Tiii&5»,_V\"NlTiI iPetit"._()'"1't~.is' fiied under Artieies 226 and 227 of the
Co._n'stit_ution of India praying to direct the respondent no.i to 5 to
g.i':Ve. p_QriiIfI__t3 prot'eet..i.on to the petitioner and not to disturb the
«peactefnl pi'>ssessit)n oi' the petitioner over the said property in
.L .-r:oih_1s'ir.,)_nt the 8"' respondent, by tnisusing the powers vested
" .'i'i:._the"rn.£t~nd
"~"i"hi's"Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day. the Court
made foilowingt -
ORDER
The ('onnsei for the petitioner' remains absent though the matter was called out both ingge morning as well as in the post- lunch sessions. The matter being listed for <;:'t'dei',s..r'ee§1rd.ing payment of process, the very petition itself».-ta'~..co'I1:si<.lei'ed~oniV--. merits having regard to the facts anc!_cirfcurnstiancesi§"
2. The petitioner Cl~51iil!"F!_S to need' the taib'solt.1ttVe <:'iwner,t5»n enjoyment of site nos. l5 an_d__il6, KVhataiirro.3_l/3_--iD in survey no.3l/3-D of Roopenai"/'lgr:=1h:;t_raip}l3le'gi}_tf.i»iVl*l<)_l)li. Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalcr:e..__ conrtpliaint is that the eighth Tax [ijtpz-'iE'iE!'l'll3[ii1'l'it;l'i-Efililfi a-i.cl"ose "friend of' the petitioners son. The eighth reS«p_or:vcient._ is, isaid to have approached the petitioner, l.l".~i£:'_l(ii"1lgl'.1:i1l.$' S()i1._W<t2:ti.ng that he requires to produce an agreement _ r'of":aale.»_itonneet a certain tax obligation and therefore, had regaestyeditheii petitioner to execute a nominal sale agreement in respec.t__iol' the above propeity. The petitioner had reluctantly ii -..Vie-xeieuted a nominal agreement of sale dated: 3(l.E.2005. which Fwas not intended to be acted upon. it was Stated therein that he had agreed to sell the property l'? a sum of Rs.2l,6(').()(')()/-- and it also inciieated that he had reeeivetfi an advanceof'Rs~.3}{§!'},tI{)()/-- though no such amount was paid or i"eceivet£'."»v-ithfis 't:.1aiti1eL§ut'h:"ttu'~-- the market. vaiue of the property date. However, it transpires tha:t'«~the sL)ugh'titt) be misused. It is in this 3/»76£i«Wi§)_nEe;r had sought to lodge a eompiaint of the alieged fraudulent nt.
3. git that ovt«-'Eng to the eighth respor"ident' beih'gffa.e4ViGt5'vei':2rr1ent empioyee, he has successfully thwarted any a.r:tio~.r_t bei':'ig:_~~iiiaketa pursuant to the complaint sought lodged. Thevj-L:-:'i'sL£icti<>nal police have not even etitertztined c.o'rnpia4i'I1t_Va-:}d it is in this background that the petitioner is befoi'e thisttourt seeking a direction to the jurisdietionai poiice to A§3f()VizCi»?L:PF(){€Cti()f1 and to restrain the eighth respondent from ' :. §'1'1»Ei.?'.!'''ft3I"i11g with his peaeefui possession. 5 6
4. The petition on the face of it is mise0n<;e_i_._ved. The allegations of fratzd or unlawful interference with tl'iie"pi'j0perty of the petitioner can be appropriately worked oufm;pi<o¢'ec%1«ings, both civil and criminal, before appi'i0priEtItei_Ct)uris.. 2 The present petition thei'efCre rni§c§:)Anc'ei'vecl "a.nd~..pis Ltccordingly rejected.